Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 14
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 14 December 2006
[edit] Penumbra (game)
- (deleted history) — (AfD)
The article about Penumbra has been deleted before because the game was only a tech demo. Since that deletion (and the article's recreation), Penumbra has expanded into a full commercial game that has received the mention and interest of major gaming websites such as Gamespot and IGN. It is possible that the game will be digitally distributed on Steam: a major market for gaming. The full game is significant enough to warrant its own article. The focus of the article as of now is on the tech demo, but it could easily be changed to place the emphasis on the full game being developed.
I also think it's incredibly unfair because the second deletion was only a proposed one. The template said to remove it if any reason was seen as to why the article should be kept (there was no actual AfD involved). I brought the argument up on the talk page and removed the notice, and a few hours later, the article was deleted. That aside though, I still think the article should be remade to focus more on the full version of Penumbra. ShadowMan1od 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed the link to point to the AfD debate, as it should. Chris cheese whine 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's an AfD from the first time the article was deleted though (which isn't the one this is contesting, but oh well :P). ShadowMan1od 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- If it's felt the situation hasn't changed enough for it to not apply, though. -Amarkov blahedits 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, I guess that's the whole issue of debate. All the votes to delete it in that AfD were because it was just a college project and it wasn't notable enough. It's gone beyond that phase now, so should it still be deleted for the same reasons? ShadowMan1od 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- If it's felt the situation hasn't changed enough for it to not apply, though. -Amarkov blahedits 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's an AfD from the first time the article was deleted though (which isn't the one this is contesting, but oh well :P). ShadowMan1od 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- The second deletion wasn't a proposed deletion -- I placed the {{prod}} and then it was brought to my attention that the article had already failed an AfD, so I deleted it without letting the prod run its course, and told this user to come here to have it undeleted. I do note several references in Google. However, I don't know if the article truly passes notability, it's possibly close. Andre (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion without prejudice against future recreation once the game is actually released. The game company's own website says that the first episode of this game isn't scheduled for release until Q1 2007[1]. Gamespy says this game isn't due to come out until October 2007, and hasn't been rated or found a publisher yet [2]. Gamespot has a preview of the game-project-development-still-in-progress from October, which suggests the first episode is likely coming out in March 2007[3]. IGN has like 3 screenshots, and that's it as far as I can tell[4]. What's the hurry in recreating this article if the game won't be out until maybe some time March to October 2007? Wikipedia is not a place for creating pre-launch/pre-"possible distribution through Steam" marketing buzz for unpublished software projects. Bwithh 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SombatMetanee.jpg
The image was uploaded as a {{promophoto}} and included in the article Sombat Metanee in the infobox. It was flagged by User:Chowbok with a {{Replaceable fair use}} tag, which I then disputed. Through that process, however, I learned that the use in the article was indeed not fair use, so I moved it to a section of the article that detailed the actor in the era depicted in the photo. That was "not good enough" for User:Angr, who then deleted the image. I disputed this on Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg, and Angr offered some helpful suggestions about how to improve the article so that the image might be kept. Those improvements were made and a new fair-use rationale for the image was crafted. Angr then made a subjective judgement about the photo and asked if a different image could be used. I accommodated him by offering an external link to another image, but it wasn't good enough for him, either. I then offered a link to several images that he could choose from, and that's when his responses ended. So I've brought the issue here, seeking a resolution. — WiseKwai 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- The discussion is at Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg. I'm still not 100% convinced the image is unreplaceable yet, but I was surprised when the talk page was closed for further discussion. My responses only ended because I felt out of my depth in making decisions on what images do or do not adequately illustrate the physical attractiveness of an actor I've never heard of. I was hoping for more input from others rather than "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it." —Angr 10:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm the one who closed the debate. I just thought it was policy to close debate after the image was deleted. I certainly didn't mean to stifle debate if it's still up in the air. I personally wouldn't have deleted it, FWIW, but I know it's a borderline case. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note -- we don't appear to have a source for this image or know who owns its copyright -- there's a statement that the image was "released by" a film festival. This fails our image sourcing requirements. Jkelly 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn — per DRVers request. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
